(Newser)
–
The White House waded into the politically volatile territory of SOPA today, notes the Hill, and it sounds a little wary about the anti-piracy legislation. "While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," reads a blog post from three tech officials in the administration.

Maybe more significant for SOPA opponents: House Judiciary chair Lamar Smith yesterday backed off controversial language in his bill that would require Internet service providers to block non-US websites that have pirated content, notes Bloomberg. (It's a "major concession" in the arcane area of Domain Name System filtering, says the Hill.) Smith issued a statement today welcoming the White House position and pledging to get something passed this year. SOPA foe Darrell Issa, meanwhile, says the bill is still "fundamentally flawed" even with Smith's concession, but he said he's gotten assurances from House leaders that it won't hit the floor until consensus is reached. The Senate is expected to have a procedural vote on its version on Jan. 24.

Anti-piracy efforts can be directed at two general targets: individual downloader/uploaders and the distribution websites that bring the former together. From my reading of SOPA, the bill targets the latter. Currently, if a website hosts pirated content, the owner must send a cease and desist letter to get it taken down...but by then the content has already been distributed. SOPA would allow such sites to be blocked. The problem is that it is not entirely clear what counts as encouraging piracy. Under a broad interpretation, pretty much all user-generated sites are toast. More likely, it will be one of those laws that will only be enforced for extreme violators...but if a law is only enforced sometimes, that kinda undermines the whole concept of having laws. Another problem is that anyone with MAFIAAFire can just navigate around the blocks automatically. Of course, the above discussion is also based on reading the bill prior to the concession, so much of it may no longer be applicable. The difficulty in going after individuals for copyright infringement (i.e. using current laws) is that the litigation involved is more expensive than it is worth (which is a big part of why the RIAA ultimately backed off its litigation campaign)...well, that changed when the Copyright Group developed its settlement-driven business model (and the law firms mimicking their tactics)...but that's another story.